Quote: Originally posted by mmt0315 on 2/18/2010THIS COMMENT IS INTENDED FOR DI ONLYThe way the system is currently set up (and by system it means recruiting), most good classes are the product of recruiting players which you don't have to battle for and maybe winning one battle mixed in. If you get into two battles you're lucky to win one and sometimes can win two.  Three rarely happens.Daler's points do not make sense to me as they are based on a recruiting which simply does not exist @ DI.  I am one of the biggest proponents of EE's but you cannot have it both ways.  WIS took away classes of more than 6, fine. We each curtail our rosters accordingly to comply with those rules.  But when you had to the mix a class of 5 Srs., and 3 EEs, along with money for only 6 players AND the manner in which recruiting is currently set up, not funding each opening makes no sense and is inherently unfair to those coaches affected. And you know what Dalter. Yes, it might only benefit team like Illinois and UNC in Phelan or Georgetown in Tark next season.  But look at what it takes to build a program to that level, get the school to where you wanted it AND then have it destroyed by EE's and not having the ability to bring in even a class of 5 or 6 solid players because you cannot afford to fight for players even with an A+ prestige. Sure you can lower the expectations and recruit as though youre a B school which the end result would be the same.I havent looked at UNC's class thus far but the early results at Illinois are specifically what I'm talking about.You have not given any particular good reason as to why the restriction is six.Coach Billy's comments were also pretty spot on an inline with my point in its entirety.

Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 2/18/2010
How dare I go away and work for a few hours! No kidding!

Anyway... l let me just clarify something that seems to be overlooked pretty frequently here... it's not the class size limit that causes the need for >6 scholarships. It's the EEs. Period.

The class size limit puts most coaches in a situation where they have fairly balanced classes. 99% of the time, if a coach is good enough to have 2-3 EEs, he's NOT going to have 5 Seniors on his roster. (Why? Because it's most likely that those Seniors the roster the previous season to EE)

The reason we're seeing class sizes of >6 is because EEs are ripping 4+ players away from teams.

I'll give you 15 seconds to guess what part of this we should really take a look at.

Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 2/18/2010If we had a system where the schools that were losing all of those EEs were struggling to keep their programs above water, I might sympathize. But as it is, no one in their right mind is going to try to take on a 6 opening, A prestige program unless they are tied up in 2 or more battles. Why should we make those programs stronger

Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 2/18/2010Everyone was being treated equally.

Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 2/18/2010If we had a system where the schools that were losing all of those EEs were struggling to keep their programs above water, I might sympathize. But as it is, no one in their right mind is going to try to take on a 6 opening, A prestige program unless they are tied up in 2 or more battles. Why should we make those programs stronger

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/18/2010
This is further disappointing because it demonstrates that WIS doesn't really have their finger on the pulse of what HD coaches want and care about, as well as what might be good for the game.

You want to make a small change? I've got a couple dozen of them listed in a thread here that would make the vast majority of people quite happy, and more hopeful about HD as well.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/18/2010
And to answer sully's impassioned cries of "Why does the cap have to be six?":

It doesn't have to be. At this point, six is an arbitrary number, just as $15K per schollie or $350 for a home visit are arbitrary numbers, as are dozens of other numbers in the game. And those numbers were arrived at because it was felt they would work within the system and provide the proper balance and gameplay.

The # could also very easily be 5 or 7 or something else. But 6 is the number that is currently in play, and it has established a good balance. In response, I think there are some very good reasons not to increase it from 6, which have been stated ad nauseum in this thread:

-Lets teams with multiple walk-ons off the hook w. out real repercussions.

-The rich get richer (i.e. high prestige, multiple early entry teams getting more cash). Dalt I really can't understand how you don't see this as a problem. It is no fault of my, yours, mmts, mlats, lm2, oldave - whoever it may be and we get punished because of it. It makes no sense what-so-ever for the playing field to not be even in terms of $$ / Ship ratio.

-# of schollies already carries way too much weight in recruiting. You keep saying this, what would you rather have it be? This is how recruiting is set up I could go on about how it is arbitray just like you have stated about the numbers above. It is how recruiting is built - geography is much much more of a factor and makes it even harder for the teams that get destroyed to rebuild.

-The main issue (EE's) can be effectively addressed by making tweaks to the EE process. We all agree that EEs are not 100% working, they serve a purpose of (as you yourself have reported and agreed with) of leveling the playing field from top to bottom - so why then do the top teams need another hurdle to jump over by being down in the $$ / Ship ratio???

Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 2/18/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/18/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 2/18/2010
Why do you want to penalize teams that battle for players? Would you rather no one battle for players and recruiting just becomes you pick who you want? I dont understand. You still have not mentioned anything about why 6 is a magic number. I'd love to hear that argument.

I didn't say that I don't want battles, that's ludicrious. The cap is in place now and there are tons of battles. I just said that if you battle and take risks and have multiple walk-ons, there should be actual repercussions for taking those risks.

What you're advocating is to be able to take the risk and have no repercussions. That's absurd.

No repercussions??? How about you lose out on 2 players and have only 10 on your roster